I trust my dentist to fix my teeth. I don't trust her to give me advice about money, cars or audio.
I don't trust what I hear with my own ears, unless it also accords with my understanding, or it is obvious. I mean 'obvious' in the normal sense of the word, not the audiophile sense. So an audible buzz is obvious (especially if I can also see it on a 'scope), but improved "air", "space", "musicality" etc. are rarely obvious and are just as likely to be my imagination.
I don't trust what I hear with my own ears, unless it also accords with my understanding, or it is obvious. I mean 'obvious' in the normal sense of the word, not the audiophile sense. So an audible buzz is obvious (especially if I can also see it on a 'scope), but improved "air", "space", "musicality" etc. are rarely obvious and are just as likely to be my imagination.
skeptics can be idiots too
This argument reminds me of a Skeptical Inquirer article trying do debunk the claim that a girl has X-ray vision. This article is a study in how NOT to make a scientific inquiry. By focusing on the "X-ray" claim, and believing it to be sufficient (using a seriously poor experiment and statistical methods) to disprove that her ability is related to 'see through vision', they simply glossed over the fact that a teenager has remarkable skill in determining what organ system or body part is ailing a person. Instead of figuring out if she is better than average people or doctors even, and then trying to determine what she IS doing that we could learn from...SI just wants to say "she doesn't have X-ray vision." and add another check mark to the busted column.
To relate this to the Bybee, the question is: “what DOES it do, if anything?.” Until it is answered what the Bybee does (as opposed to focusing on what it doesn't do), I have to remain open to potential subjective improvement in using it, no matter how bogus or irrelevant the marketing claims of the device are. [That said, I could never justify buying one myself.]
This argument reminds me of a Skeptical Inquirer article trying do debunk the claim that a girl has X-ray vision. This article is a study in how NOT to make a scientific inquiry. By focusing on the "X-ray" claim, and believing it to be sufficient (using a seriously poor experiment and statistical methods) to disprove that her ability is related to 'see through vision', they simply glossed over the fact that a teenager has remarkable skill in determining what organ system or body part is ailing a person. Instead of figuring out if she is better than average people or doctors even, and then trying to determine what she IS doing that we could learn from...SI just wants to say "she doesn't have X-ray vision." and add another check mark to the busted column.
To relate this to the Bybee, the question is: “what DOES it do, if anything?.” Until it is answered what the Bybee does (as opposed to focusing on what it doesn't do), I have to remain open to potential subjective improvement in using it, no matter how bogus or irrelevant the marketing claims of the device are. [That said, I could never justify buying one myself.]
Vegn aza bisl tuchus boyml, macht men aza groysn yontiff.
Oy, hat men nit genug schumutz
Is it safe yet?
You have to remember that to us Brits, American teeth all look like false ones - they are too regular, straight and peroxide white. Why pay money to look like you wear false teeth? Actually, things are changing over here. It is a mystery to me why early teenagers, at their most self-conscious age, are willing to spend a couple of years with metal wire all round their teeth. Still, it keeps dentists in their flashy cars and big houses.
English Teeth, English Teeth!
Shining in the sun
A part of British heritage
Aye, each and every one.
English Teeth, Happy Teeth!
Always having fun
Clamping down on bits of fish
And sausages half done.
English Teeth! HEROES' Teeth!
Hear them click! and clack!
Let's sing a song of praise to them -
Three Cheers for the Brown, Grey and Black.
— Spike Milligan, "Teeth"
Shining in the sun
A part of British heritage
Aye, each and every one.
English Teeth, Happy Teeth!
Always having fun
Clamping down on bits of fish
And sausages half done.
English Teeth! HEROES' Teeth!
Hear them click! and clack!
Let's sing a song of praise to them -
Three Cheers for the Brown, Grey and Black.
— Spike Milligan, "Teeth"
The issue raised by thune is a valid one (if I can drag us back to the topic), and I think I made a similar point some time ago. I think we can agree that the device does not work in the way that is claimed, because the claims are pure mumbo-jumbo. SY's tests show that in the audio range it appears to do nothing at all. That doesn't quite prove that it does nothing, although it comes close. If it keeps RF out of a system then it could improve sound, yet have no effect in the audio region. I am still not convinced; it would help if the sellers came up with a better explanation.
Technically the topic is the Blowtorch preamplifier, which to my knowledge didn't use Bybee putrifiers.
Perhaps it's time to retire this thread?
se
Thanks for the education
What SY described there was bias, not prejudice. If the thing can be overcome with evidence, its not prejudice. We have for example 'racial prejudice' aka 'racism' - there's no evidence to be overcome there. Ditto 'sexual prejudice' aka 'sexism'.
Being convinced by reading whatever is one thing. Being convinced by hearing the results with one's own ears is a different thing. Since conventional measurements aren't telling how a piece of gear sounds to the ear, at least not in full, they are irrelevant here.
Nope.
"a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea."
It's a word that has been badly abused.
Wrong.
From dictionary.com:
- an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
- any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
- unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Note here all three possibilities are either favourable or unfavourable and therefore emotionally coloured. Emotion-based judgements cannot be overcome with evidence as they were necessarily formed without evidence.
And if claiming the wrong meaning for it counts as 'bad abuse', that's certainly continuing here.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.